But you're not talking about creating a product, you're talking about expanding an existing product to new platforms to create revenue. Now that's just common sense for anyone in business. Is it a crowdfunding project however?

Actually, the bulk of the funding will go to support the VO 1.9 gameplay expansion, not the iPad release. Even in the case of the iPad, we do specifically state the funds go to extra polish and features, rather than the port itself. So, yes, we are using these funds to build a new product, and we do need the funds to help us build the product. It really isn't so different from someone proposing to make a sequel of a game they made before, except that mine gets continuously updated and I don't have the luxury of the clear delineation of products.

No, we can't afford to do this on our own, not on anything approaching the timescale I've outlined. That's the whole point. If I already had these funds in addition to what capital we have, I would not be asking for it, period. One way or the other, we *are* risking our own capital, these funds are only enough to close the gap to make the near-term timeframe realistic.

If you could write a book over a length of 20 years, does that make it morally questionable for you to offer a Kickstarter allowing you to write the book in one year? What about if it would take you 5 years on your own? A big part of the point of Kickstarter is about reaching a critical mass that allows something creative to come to fruition.

There is a similar critical mass to a major game expansion on a complex MMO title. All this does is give our 4-person company the resources to focus purely on development for enough time to make this happen cohesively. If we did it without additional support it would probably take us several more years.

We already have an existing product, and we are risking ourselves. We've already invested quite a bit in the iPad version, and we are continuing to, a big part of the point of the Kickstarter is to fund additional polish and improvement prior to release (which I state in the video and on the KS page).

We do have a supportive player base, but some development goals benefit from raising a block of cash earlier in the process, rather than spreading it throughout, the way funds come into a launched product. The biggest value is that it lets us focus purely on development for a longer period of time, instead of dividing a lot of time towards marketing/bizdev. This has the affect of substantially accelerating development, by freeing resources to just focus on a forward goal.

I don't see this as a moral hazard. We're a developer, offering to make something better and on a much faster timeline if we obtain additional support from people who like what we're making. And we're providing great value to anyone who does support us, through massive discounts on game access. The fact that we're a real thing, with far lower risk, should make us less of a moral hazard.

Our game definitely has a lot of areas that need improvement, and is not for everyone. That being said..

You can select dropped loot and identify it, by hitting "b" to select-in-front. You can also examine and selectively jettison after picking it up. The second tutorial should describe this. They're also colorized by item class, which makes for fast identification of "scrap" and the like, but selection is what most people use. License progression should also be explained in the early tutorials.

We definitely need more missions, and a better mission interface. But there are quite a few story-driven mission trees, and we're continually adding them. Players can also make missions, if they like, via the PCC construct.

You can pretty quickly upgrade to a ship with more cargo space. Plus, people are usually selective of what cargo they want to carry, using the object-selection and the cargo jettison interface. That being said, maybe we can reduce the amount of scrap dropped, or buff the newbie ship cargo space. I hadn't actually heard the "not enough cargo" criticism before.. people are usually in such a hurry to upgrade their ship.

Combat is probably the deepest aspect of the game, and has a learning curve, but also has a lot of flexibility and depth for those with experience. As a result, PvP is usually cited as one of the better areas of gameplay, but I know that's not for everyone. Some adapt to combat quickly, others don't. I still struggle with how to best help new people learn the system. In part it may just be the price of having a "twitch" model game.

We also have two entirely different flight models (one that behaves like a flightsim, and one that behaves more like space physics), the use of which has a major impact on combat. There are advanced tutorials intended to help people learn the pros and cons of the two systems, and how you can toggle between them.

We're continually working on the "endgame", of which this new conquest thing is a part (as are previous additions, like Dynamic Warfare shown in the game trailer), but will not be entirely combative at all. If anything, the direction we're headed is far more driven by economics and production.

Also, our trial is only 8 hours, but it's of total in-game time. So, it could be used in one day, or spread over a week, etc. Plus, there are some extended trial key promos that are still available.

Anyway, I appreciate the honest feedback. We are an indie developer and a tiny company, but we listen to our playerbase and try to improve the game every week.